PEP 712: Mark as Rejected (gh-3829)

* Officially reject PEP 712

peps/pep-0712.rst

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Title: Adding a "converter" parameter to dataclasses.field
 Author: Joshua Cannon <joshdcannon@gmail.com>
 Sponsor: Eric V. Smith <eric at trueblade.com>
 Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-712-adding-a-converter-parameter-to-dataclasses-field/26126
-Status: Draft
+Status: Rejected
 Type: Standards Track
 Content-Type: text/x-rst
 Created: 01-Jan-2023
@@ -11,6 +11,19 @@ Python-Version: 3.13
 Post-History: `27-Dec-2022 <https://mail.python.org/archives/list/typing-sig@python.org/thread/NWZQIINJQZDOCZGO6TGCUP2PNW4PEKNY/>`__,
               `19-Jan-2023 <https://discuss.python.org/t/add-converter-to-dataclass-field/22956>`__,
               `23-Apr-2023 <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-712-adding-a-converter-parameter-to-dataclasses-field/26126>`__,
+Resolution: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-712-adding-a-converter-parameter-to-dataclasses-field/26126/98
+
+
+Rejection Notice
+================
+
+The reasons for the 2024 Steering Council rejection include:
+
+* We did not find evidence of a strong consensus that this feature was needed in the standard library, despite some proponents arguing in favor in order to reduce their dependence on third party packages. For those who need such functionality, we think those existing third party libraries such as attrs and Pydantic (which the PEP references) are acceptable alternatives.
+* This feature seems to us like an accumulation of what could be considered more cruft in the standard library, leading us ever farther away from the “simple” use cases that dataclasses are ideal for.
+* Reading the “How to Teach This” section of the PEP gives us pause that the pitfalls and gotchas are significant, with a heightened confusion and complexity outweighing any potential benefits.
+* The PEP seems more focused toward helping type checkers than people using the library.
+
 
 Abstract
 ========